Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

That is not a free market problem. That is a problem with the legal sytem.

In a free market there would be another source of power because of that.

Soldiers come from training, not free markets.

Do you have any assumptions that you base your economics on?

Any basic truths?

Yes, I am conscience usually when I am standing up and walking around
with my eyes open.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Your great-grandaddy sold mineral rights to some body. And right now most people are selling their grandchildren to the world bank, who knew?

Dearest Semi,
Semi, may I call you Almost? Listen, Almost. Now it is obvious. You are going far out of your way to respond with nonsense. Nothing in that post resembles a coherent answer to anything I have ever written, let alone what it portends to respond to as well as quotes. So, Almost if you have something else you would like to discuss then that is fine. Please do not reply to me in a fake attempt to engage me in what turn out to be your random thoughts.
As a side note, you know nothing about my great granddaddy or where he even lived, Almost. I have no knowledge of sold grand children anywhere either. Mainly though, Almost the thing is I do not care about any of this.

I WANTED YOU TO ACTUALLY TRY ANSWERING WHAT I WROTE.

I give up.
I'm hungry.

reply to post by mastahunta


I am starting to notice that free market conservatives online a pretty shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh on fracking.
What's up with that?

Originally posted by LErickson
reply to post by mastahunta

 

I am starting to notice that free market conservatives online a pretty shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh on fracking.
What's up with that?

Cause it's non of your fracking business. If you don't like having you water catch on fire
you should have decided to move in front of their fracking in the first place.

Fracking isn't free market actually though. Fracking is actually something the government
forces companies to do, actually the free market would end fracking because your could
be free to tell them "no, stop it, go away frackers!" Then they would apologize and send
you doughnuts.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Are you serious?

Always and only. Deadly so. See that look in my eyes?

No, the free market is not designed to have a winner.

OK.
The free market is not "designed" nor a game.
I will give you that.
Now just explain to me how it is any different than a game designed to have a winner.

My car and my sledgehammer are incredibly different things but if only used to smash things, the difference narrows down to little more than quantity of the exact same purpose, process, and result.

So I am listening.

You just said it's not a game and then you said it is a game.

Then you said two different things can have identical qualities.

.....?

I assume your assertion is that the free market is bad, you know its bad, and you want me to admit its bad. So we need someone who is good (because he tells us he is good) to make rules that keep anyone from hurting us.

You might be right i guess, people are bad, How much control do want other people to have over you?

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

That is not a free market problem. That is a problem with the legal sytem.

In a free market there would be another source of power because of that.

Soldiers come from training, not free markets.

Do you have any assumptions that you base your economics on?

Any basic truths?

1.Supply can be manipulated

2.Free Markets cannot function when ethics are abandoned

3.Ethics have been abandoned

4.Supply is easy to manipulate

5.Consolidation is the purpose of business

6.Competition is not guaranteed

7.When politicians say free market, it is usually code for screwing over a bunch of people
to benefit a company.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by mastahunta

That is not a free market problem. That is a problem with the legal sytem.

In a free market there would be another source of power because of that.

Soldiers come from training, not free markets.

Do you have any assumptions that you base your economics on?

Any basic truths?

1.Supply can be manipulated

2.Free Markets cannot function when ethics are abandoned

3.Ethics have been abandoned

4.Supply is easy to manipulate

5.Consolidation is the purpose of business

6.Competition is not guaranteed

7.When politicians say free market, it is usually code for screwing over a bunch of people
to benefit a company.

A fair start.

As observations of our current system they are all true in at least one market.

Our current system is somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism though, not a free market system.

1. Supply should be the most that can be produed at a desirable profit. If a supplier takes a day off or tries to raise the price by producing less, then the competition will take away that same amount of business. So in a free market supply over all would match demand overall.
That is basic macroeconomics.

Supply can only be manipulated by a cartel or a monopoly. Like a stab in the back the only way to deal with a monopoly is to prevent it. The first diesel engines were designed to run on peanut oil. I'm sure that a substitute for oil could be found, although i'm also sure that developing it would be against the law one way or another.

2. Ethics are assumed to be neccessary at some level in any social activity. Any alternative to a free market would not work without ethics either.


3. True Don't know to what extent, maybe the majority (brainwashed ignorant groupthinkers) think it is for the best. When we gave away our factories we lost our real economic ability.

4. see 1. above

5. The pupose of business is to produce goods for consumption. Consolidation is encouraged by a system that is trying to centralize.

6. Competition always exsists. In a monoploy the competition is with the next best product.

7. i agree. NAFTA and GATT were called free trade but were really just changing the regulations from this to that. The small US companies have to deal with the goverment taxes and regulations while the big companies get cheaper labor, no taxes, and tailor-made laws.


The basic principles of free market economics are

1. Everybody chooses what they think is the best deal for themselves

2. Each person can make better decisions about his local situation than a central power can

3. Credit will be limited to money in savings. No central bank

4. Demand will decide what is produed. As a result buisinesses will be smaller because demand will change more quickly than in a controlled economy

5. The business cycle is caused by too much credit. Businesses based on credit can go far astray of what the public demands and when they fail they cause a depression.

reply to post by mastahunta


The ongoing Devaluation of the U.S. Dollar is Causing the Higher Prices for Gasoline Right Now compliments of the Federal Reserve Bank . End of Story..........

Your arguments are illogical. I'll address each one.

1. The printing of trillions of dollars has nothing to do with Keynes, and everything to do with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans deregulating the financial sector. It is lack of government involvement that allowed that system to run amuck.

Free market concepts continuing their record streak of failure.

No, printing money is central planning coordinated by the Federal Reserve undertaken by the Obama administration and the social democracies of Europe in efforts to prop up corporations, banks, bonds, and stocks at the expense of the value of currencies. It forces inflation which is a direct transfer of wealth from the poor/middle classes to these corporations, banks, stockholders, and bondholders. Why is it a transfer of wealth? As currency depletes in value so does the value of our wages and prices of food and energy. Your misunderstanding of this concept is a major problem.

2. Wars and rumors of wars are the bread and butter of free market politicians, who claim they are for smaller government, but continually create a larger government by way of the military, to protect the assets of corporations overseas.

I'm addressing government spending and government intervention. I could care less what kind of politician is interested in war. It is still the government's intervention that is causing higher prices and not free market. They can claim to be "market politicians' all they want, but it is completely separate from the issue of free market and that makes this a straw-man fallacy.

3. Your one sold point.

Third on the list of importance. The others are much more solid.

4. And when do you think that pipeline will be completed? By the way, Tar sands are not going to lower the cost of oil. Do some research.

I've done much research. Regulations and strong government action against oil doesn't help the price of oil in any way whatsoever. Regulations and more rules only make the cost of finding oil and using oil more expensive. This is a significant part of why oil is expensive. Once again you are forming a straw-man fallacy that focuses the attention away from the fact that rules and regulations are not of the free market and are responsible for some increased cost.

Elimination of government control has resulted in the increase of gas prices, mainly the government not properly regulating commodities speculation, due to free market concepts being put into place.

Rubbish, regulations are the definition of government control.

I'm sorry, but the arguments you made were weak and show a genuine misunderstanding of free market concepts and Keynesian economics.

Still trying to figure out how ANY of this beats simply not buying gasoline.

Can anyone help me out?

Originally posted by Furbs
Still trying to figure out how ANY of this beats simply not buying gasoline.

Can anyone help me out?

Have see our roads? We need relief now.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Furbs
Still trying to figure out how ANY of this beats simply not buying gasoline.

Can anyone help me out?

Have see our roads? We need relief now.

How does that even answer my question?

Relief comes the -moment- you stop buying gasoline.

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Furbs
Still trying to figure out how ANY of this beats simply not buying gasoline.

Can anyone help me out?

Have see our roads? We need relief now.

How does that even answer my question?

Relief comes the -moment- you stop buying gasoline.

Well you don't get it here man, I am asking a larger existential question
and challenging the status quo which is imbedded in that "wisdom".
I am aware that there are other alternatives, but my biggest concern
is the subtext, which is why do we as Americans sit on our hands when
get robbed and abused by multinational corporation, cartels and
investors? Who are largely the most vocal proponents of "free market"
which is code for, pollution, loopholes, graft, corruption, consolidation
and any other crappy thing they can conceive.

I think it is because a great majority of people think that ending corruption
or even recognizing corruption, is an affront to their "free market" fantasies.
While the REAL free market would be stronger if our political system
honed in and ended large scale abuses, so that the free market was
able to be an actual force as opposed to some BS slogan used to
unify political bedfellows.

So I am focused on the subtext that I have just explained, consequently
your idea would not address the attitudes at play in the debate about
the roles of business and government.

Originally posted by Bugman82
Your arguments are illogical. I'll address each one.

1. The printing of trillions of dollars has nothing to do with Keynes, and everything to do with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans deregulating the financial sector. It is lack of government involvement that allowed that system to run amuck.

Free market concepts continuing their record streak of failure.

No, printing money is central planning coordinated by the Federal Reserve undertaken by the Obama administration and the social democracies of Europe in efforts to prop up corporations, banks, bonds, and stocks at the expense of the value of currencies.

The excessive printing of more money was a direct reaction to the policies conservative free market
proponents conceived of in the late 90's. Apply "free market" principles to create a multi
Trillion dollar speculative market to lending, credit and insurance industries. Exactly in
the name of deregulation and free markets, those efforts were ill conceived and were
perpetrated by applying the free market monicer, which stupified all the idiot masses
who stop thinking in the presense of the wrods FREE MARKET.

Those banks, bonds and stock all represent depositor money, so you are essentially
saying wipe out the publics finances that are locked up in all those institutions and
get on with it. I say you are half baked if you think bankrupting everyone with a
bnak account, pension or a dollar is a good idea.

I cannot say that bailout should have happened either, I think all parties should have liquidated
and returned to the public. But the would be REDISTRIBUTION HEAVY.

It forces inflation which is a direct transfer of wealth from the poor/middle classes to these corporations, banks, stockholders, and bondholders. Why is it a transfer of wealth? As currency depletes in value so does the value of our wages and prices of food and energy. Your misunderstanding of this concept is a major problem.

I think inflation is by design on several fronts, Oil has perptrated the largest "legal" transfer
of wealth in the history of mankind. 300 million Americans have to pay to make 300 executives
and 30 families richer than gods. They intentionally inflate the price of gas so they can better
profit margins.

I'm addressing government spending and government intervention. I could care less what kind of politician is interested in war. It is still the government's intervention that is causing higher prices and not free market. They can claim to be "market politicians' all they want, but it is completely separate from the issue of free market and that makes this a straw-man fallacy.

No, it is the speculation that allows for the extra premiums to be attached to the commodity,
speculation is a free market principle. Fix prices would be the opposite and fixed prices
are not free market.

We have a transportation infrastructure designed around the consumption of gasoline. You are forced to buy gasoline because of the system in place, or endured extreme barriers in moving around in your community.

None of this was done freely.

This idealistic world you people describe as a free market does not exist, and never has existed.

By supporting free markets you people wind up supporting fraudulent business practices.

If you want to dream about free markets go ahead, but you need to recognize that the politicians who preach about free markets in fact are in support of getting rid of the rules that prevent fraudulent business practices, even RP.

reply to post by mastahunta

The excessive printing of more money was a direct reaction to the policies conservative free market
proponents conceived of in the late 90's. Apply "free market" principles to create a multi
Trillion dollar speculative market to lending, credit and insurance industries. Exactly in
the name of deregulation and free markets, those efforts were ill conceived and were
perpetrated by applying the free market monicer, which stupified all the idiot masses
who stop thinking in the presense of the wrods FREE MARKET.

Those banks, bonds and stock all represent depositor money, so you are essentially
saying wipe out the publics finances that are locked up in all those institutions and
get on with it. I say you are half baked if you think bankrupting everyone with a
bnak account, pension or a dollar is a good idea.

I cannot say that bailout should have happened either, I think all parties should have liquidated
and returned to the public. But the would be REDISTRIBUTION HEAVY.

It would be easily argued that it was government regulation that caused the housing bubble in the first place. Dodd/Frank coerced banks through regulation and law to provide sub-prime mortgages to people who could not afford the said loans.

Also, Federal Reserve monetary policy is the exact culprit of the speculative market. Forcing interest rates to be where they want them and deciding inflation rates, bond rates, and stock values through their monetary policies is a government response and not a free market issue. This central bank planning caused the great depression and failed to recognize the housing bubble when true free market analyzers recognized the coming issues. I haven't even gotten down to the issues of purposeful currency devaluation.











Odd, a free market proponent predicts the housing bubble and the Federal Reserve chairman of the Keynesian front fails miserably.

I think inflation is by design on several fronts, Oil has perptrated the largest "legal" transfer
of wealth in the history of mankind. 300 million Americans have to pay to make 300 executives
and 30 families richer than gods. They intentionally inflate the price of gas so they can better
profit margins.

How many people are employed by the oil and gas industry? 9.2 million

No, it is the speculation that allows for the extra premiums to be attached to the commodity,
speculation is a free market principle. Fix prices would be the opposite and fixed prices
are not free market.

Watch the above videos and understand that speculation is a government problem as the Federal Reserve determines monetary policy and has much control. This fundamental misunderstanding is very important for you to grasp.

The same principles that resulted in the housing bubble are the exact same reasons we see the issues within the oil industry today amongst a plethora of government based issues.

reply to post by mastahunta

The excessive printing of more money was a direct reaction to the policies conservative free market proponents conceived of in the late 90's. Apply "free market" principles to create a multi 
Trillion dollar speculative market to lending, credit and insurance industries. Exactly in 
the name of deregulation and free markets, those efforts were ill conceived and were 
perpetrated by applying the free market monicer, which stupified all the idiot masses 
who stop thinking in the presense of the wrods FREE MARKET.

That is absolutely false and you continue to proffer a disingenuous argument despite agreeing that it is not a free market. Excessive printing of money is a direct result of the Federal Reserve banking cartel being granted a monopoly on our monetary system by a bought and paid for corrupt congress. Prior to that we had a free market in currency and we were the most prosperous in our history. See Murray Rothbards book it is a free PDF and must reading: mises.org...

Those banks, bonds and stock all represent depositor money, so you are essentially 
saying wipe out the publics finances that are locked up in all those institutions and 
get on with it. I say you are half baked if you think bankrupting everyone with a 
bnak account, pension or a dollar is a good idea. 

Again you show a complete lack of understanding of the monetary system. The Banks bonds and stocks do not represent depositors money. They represent absolutely nothing. They are printed out of thin air at the whims of the banksters. When you get a loan from a bank they do not loan out other depositors money they can't it is against the law. They in fact do not loan you anything they create the supposed money on the spot by a book entry in a computer based on your promissory note. they then deposit your note and multiply its face value by 9 and record that as bank asset. You funded your own note and they enslaved you fo 20-30 years for the privilege of defrauding you into thinking you got a loan. If the American people ever got off their lazy asses and actually understood this there would be a revolution by morning. Prior to that we had an quazi bi metal standard mostly silver and gold which checks inflation and the banksters cannot print it, that is why they paid off the politicians to pass the Federal Reserve Act so they could print money at will! It is the greatest ponzi scheme in the history of the world.

No, it is the speculation that allows for the extra premiums to be attached to the commodity, 
speculation is a free market principle. Fix prices would be the opposite and fixed prices 
are not free market. 

No speculation is not a free market principle. Speculating in a monopolized market as you have agreed it is is not a free market principle. I blew this notion out of the water along with several others in previous response to you and you completely ignored it. It seems clear you have no intention of rational discussion but just continue to obfuscate to try and posit your illogic to massage your emotional attachment to your false pop ideology...

reply to post by poet1b

We have a transportation infrastructure designed around the consumption of gasoline. You are forced to buy gasoline because of the system in place, or endured extreme barriers in moving around in your community. 

Actually up until the latter half of the 20th century our road system was largely created by free enterprise until the government got involved. However you are correct that we are forced to buy gasoline but that is not because of the road system it is because of the government granted oil cartel monopoly on fuel production. We could actual be free of oil for fuel in 2-3 years if we switched to ethanol. However the oil cartels have proffered a number of myths and lies about ethanol when is it a clean renewable fuel that can run in all our engines including diesels and jets and the engines last 3 times as long because there is no carbon build up it does not pollute the atmosphere and provides more power and efficient burn of the fuel. You only burn about 20% of the gasoline you put in your car. And the ICE was designed to run on ethanol not gasoline.

This idealistic world you people describe as a free market does not exist, and never has existed. 

It in fact has existed in history and I gave you a reference proving its existence please read it: mises.org...

By supporting free markets you people wind up supporting fraudulent business practices.

Please explain how the freedom to create any business one desires unencumbered by government intervention is fraudulent? it is what built this country! In a free market and not the monopolized bastardized socialist fascist corporatism we have today if one does not adhere to sound honest business practices they will soon go out of business as people will not patronize them. It is the ultimate democracy where people vote with their feet and wallets as to what businesses stay in business. However once government intervenes then we have the monopolies we see today they created leaving us with no choices that you are opining about. It is very simple and you told me earlier you get the concept however in this last post you seem to revert back to this false argument.

f you want to dream about free markets go ahead, but you need to recognize that the politicians who preach about free markets in fact are in support of getting rid of the rules that prevent fraudulent business practices, even RP.

I suggest you watch the excellent videos bugman posted above and how Ron Paul predicted all of it years before hand. And then explain to us how he is promoting fraudulent business practices. And yet you are calling for more of what created these problems and ignoring the man who knew all along how dangerous this was and warned us countless times and has been ridiculed ostracism etc. and still people are dismissing him even though he ha been 100% right on these issues for over 20 years.... Please return to rationality based on evidence reason and logic and not emotional irrational rhetoric put out by the enemies of freedom!

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by mastahunta

 

The excessive printing of more money was a direct reaction to the policies conservative free market
proponents conceived of in the late 90's. Apply "free market" principles to create a multi
Trillion dollar speculative market to lending, credit and insurance industries. Exactly in
the name of deregulation and free markets, those efforts were ill conceived and were
perpetrated by applying the free market monicer, which stupified all the idiot masses
who stop thinking in the presense of the wrods FREE MARKET.

Those banks, bonds and stock all represent depositor money, so you are essentially
saying wipe out the publics finances that are locked up in all those institutions and
get on with it. I say you are half baked if you think bankrupting everyone with a
bnak account, pension or a dollar is a good idea.

I cannot say that bailout should have happened either, I think all parties should have liquidated
and returned to the public. But the would be REDISTRIBUTION HEAVY.

It would be easily argued that it was government regulation that caused the housing bubble in the first place. Dodd/Frank coerced banks through regulation and law to provide sub-prime mortgages to people who could not afford the said loans.

Why yes, but you so convieniently failed to mention that the vehicle which created the
speculative market was created by eliminating regulations that barred the practice in the first place.
Home ownership serves a purpose, allowing banks to over leverage, insure and sell their own debt
in the same house is not in the publics interest was the delivery system to the economic world. You
cannot inject someone with AIDS if you don't have a needle, free marketeers designed the needle,
because they are blinded by the words FREE MARKET, all thought ceases once that word is spoken.
Banks, wrote the policies and had free market proponents sponsor and sell the deregulatory
schemes which were put into law.

Isn't it odd that millions of mortgages were sold and paid off just fine prior to the free market stepping
in and destroying a system that provided a real path to home ownership. So you blaming it on that
is beyond sneeky or honest in my book.

Before those regulations were destroyed by free market proponents, a person who failed
to pay their mortgage would have simply lost their home and initial investment. But the
free market corporatist whores decided to legalize several loop holes to circumvent the
natural safe guards that provided the disincentive to knowingly sell junk, insure junk,
, package junk, trade junk all while knowing full well that it is all junk.

I was unaware that companies can't control their actions... but see, they would have been
barred from all of those practices had the moron Free marketeers rushed in and passed
and legalized fraud by decriminalizing fraud in the first place.

Free MArketeers by design or through stupidity regularly push and pen things that are
simply ways to screw over Americans by undermining sensible laws and practices.
Not allowing a bank, which operates on fiat currency to Insure their own fiat currency,
with their own cash reserves, is common F-ing sense. But of course it is easier to blame
it on a person trying to buy a house because it protects the banks and the validity of
anything they come up with, i.e free market bull crap = fraud....